Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Star date
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Is there canonical precedence for this alternative spelling? I think there should be discussion about this spelling before we allow redirection, as the impact of allowing it will be that people could start easily incorporating this two-word spelling into articles. Maybe there is some precedence on an LCARS somewhere for the spelling, but I do know the TOS-R spelling is very definitely one word. (See picture at chronometer.) Unless we find that elusive LCARS, though, I think this spelling should be de-linked and deleted. CzechOut ☎ | 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Discussion Keep. Useful redirects for common misspellings are allowed, and I could easily see someone mistaking "stardate" for "star date" if they had not seen it written. It should not be used in articles, but it is useful to maintain for the search box, so that people are directed to the correct article (and learn the correct spelling). --OuroborosCobra talk 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC) :Comment. While it is normal practice to assume that someone who has proposed a deletion has placed a de facto "delete" vote, in this instance I'm reserving judgment. To make my — let's call it, skepticism — about this redirect more clear, the practical effect of this redirect means that a person who believed that "star date" was the appropriate spelling to be apparently proved right by simply typing star date and being rewarded by a blue link: star date. If they didn't believe they were in error — and I'm sure some people might reasonably assume the term was a two-word phrase — they would have no reason to click on the link they'd just created. Before you knew it, we'd have lots of blue-linked "star dates" all over the place. The basic points of this discussion ars thus a) to determine if there is any canonical spelling of the term "star date" and b) if no such alternative spelling exists, to weigh the benefits of facility in the search box versus the possibility of mistaken application in articles. CzechOut ☎ | 00:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::If only we had a tool to and correct them... :) -- Cid Highwind 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC) :::Keep, for the above reasons. 31dot 00:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Keep, useful redirect for the search box– Cleanse 01:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC) :::::Keep: It's good for the search box. Oh, and one more thing: The to agrees with this "alternative spelling."--Tim Thomason 04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Comment. That's a bit of a misleading statement, though. Of the six uses of the term in the script, only one has the spelling "Star Date". The remainder employ "stardate". Thus, "Star Date" may safely be assumed to be a typo in the "Encounter at Farpoint" script. As for CId's most recent addition to the discussion, sure, we have the tool available to us. However it's a bit obscure how to find it, in that you'd have to know how to get to the redirect page, which a lot of novice editors don't know how to do. Then there's the whole separate question of why you'd want the ability to correct an error that wouldn't exist in the first place if this redirect weren't allowed to stand. If star date simply red-linked, the "misspelling editor" would just scratch her head and think, "I know the term has to be here somewhere. Lemme try a variation in the search box, or go to a page where I've seen the term before, and figure out how it's spelled." CzechOut ☎ | 12:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::It wouldn't be the "novice editor" who needs to know how to get to the "Whatlinkshere" page, but the experienced editor who cleans up after the novice ones. A new editor without any wiki experience most often doesn't care for red links, either, or, if he does, more often than not "solves" the problem by creating a new article at the link target, not by changing the link. Having redirects for "common" or "expected" misspellings helps to avoid that. I agree with you in that we shouldn't have links to "star date" in our articles - but that's better done by checking for links and resolving them than by pretending that such links don't exist. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC) *'Keep'. It would seem that Czechs best reasons for deletion are that we shouldn't be too concerned with new users... while also having the opinion that the way to fix the problem isn't easily apparent to new users. New users aren't as likely to edit articles, as they are to search, and read articles. So searches should be simplified, as much as possible. If having "star date", and "stardate" both as articles (for example) would help this, so be it. Editing articles can be slightly more difficult, as by the time someone starts editing articles, they should (hopefully) be a bit familiar with the wiki style, so we need not be as terribly concerned with ease. It shouldn't be difficult, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.Hossrex 11:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Admin resolution * Kept as a redirect. -- Sulfur 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)